• Kalcifer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different

    Libertarianism seeks to maximise freedom.

    some people’s freedoms infringe on others.

    Libertarianism does not, in any way, shape, or form, advocate the idea that one is able infringe on the rights, and freedoms of another without their consent. One should not be allowed to impart a cost on another without their consent, or proper compensation for damages.

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?

      Who’s freedoms do you infringe so the other one can have theirs?

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        What if you think you should be able to enjoy peace and quiet and your neighbour wants to play loud music constantly?

        These sorts of issues are examples of where we must accept that we live in an imperfect world, and, as such, we must make compromises. I completely agree that one should not be allowed to freely emit noise pollution, as it directly affects the livelihoods of all who are within earshot – imparting a psychological cost, one could say. It is not realistic to say that everyone must be completely quiet unless all parties affected have given their consent, and as such, we make reasonable limits based on context as to the amount of noise pollution that we can generate. These limits are most commonly implemented as municipal noise pollution bylaws.

          • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You do realize that virtually every municipality in existence has noise bylaws, right?

              • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I stand by what I’ve been saying.

                What, specifically, are you trying to say?

                Do you know hitting that disagree button is trying to silence my free speech?

                On the contrary. If I hit the dislike button, I am actually making use of my free speech. The fact that you are able to say that you think I am silencing your free speech is proof that you still maintain your freedom of speech. Now, if I somehow had the ability to remove your comment (looking at you, mods), that would be silencing your free speech.

                • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  But I have a right to say what I want to say without you hitting the disagree button.

                  I’m sorry my idea of freedom isn’t the same as yours maybe we should go to war over it?

                  If you want too… UwU.

                  • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    But I have a right to say what I want to say without you hitting the disagree button.

                    Why? The right to the freedom of speech is not a right to not be offended.

                    I’m sorry my idea of freedom isn’t the same as yours maybe we should go to war over it?

                    I am an advocate of the use of one’s voice over the use of violence.